What great news! President Obama's habit of playing everything close does nothing to alleviate my personal tension, but as a Commander-in-Chief, who has been better? Do you have to go back to Roosevelt?

The dang irony of it all is that it may have been Iraq's refusal to give immunity to Little Bush's Blackwater mercenaries that provided the sticking point in negotiations, which possibly forced Obama to take his team and go home. I am not saying the Iraqis would rather foreign troops occupy their country further, but the cards had to be played correctly for this to happen now.

Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the United States, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview to a private Pakistani TV channel broadcast on Saturday.

keeping 15K troops or so in Iraq would have been wise. There is hope in Iraq.

I am angry at republicans who scream that Obama team is incompetent for not being able to negotiate these terms. They don't know the inner workings of the Iraqi government, I expect the U.S. had no choice but get the hell out.

It appears to me that we are doing more harm than good in Afghanistan and should get completely out of Af-Pak militarily.

while i'm psyched that we are at least ending one war, all the news articles are pretty explicit, we are ending the war not because the Us gov't wanted it to end, but because the Iraqi gov't refused to let us stay.

Its great news but it has nothing to do with Obama being a great commander in chief.

These are negotiations. The US made it look like Iraq's fault, at least as seen by the US media. Some Iraqis wanted us out, some wanted us to stay. The "out" faction prevailed. It's cute to blame the Iraqis for our departure, but don't make me laugh: Obama really, really wanted to end this thing.

I give Obama credit for getting both the policy and the negotiation right this time. I don't know who gave him lessons, but he's learning well. Clinton gets a lot of credit, too, for making it happen. Keep going.

atron67 wrote:while i'm psyched that we are at least ending one war, all the news articles are pretty explicit, we are ending the war not because the Us gov't wanted it to end, but because the Iraqi gov't refused to let us stay.

Its great news but it has nothing to do with Obama being a great commander in chief.

Curious: what "pretty explicit" news articles are you reading? Because the explicit news articles I've read indicate it was primarily matters of diplomatic immunity and prosecution of those left in Iraq... matters on which Obama could have caved, but didn't. Seems a pretty great "commandeer in chief" move to me.

snoqueen wrote:These are negotiations. The US made it look like Iraq's fault, at least as seen by the US media. Some Iraqis wanted us out, some wanted us to stay. The "out" faction prevailed. It's cute to blame the Iraqis for our departure, but don't make me laugh: Obama really, really wanted to end this thing.

I give Obama credit for getting both the policy and the negotiation right this time. I don't know who gave him lessons, but he's learning well. Clinton gets a lot of credit, too, for making it happen. Keep going.

Get the negotiation right!? This is a painful failure we are trying to make the best of.

Obama did NOT really, really want to withdraw all troops. And getting our troops out does not "end this thing." Obama is a risk-averse guy. Withdrawing all our support services for Iraqi army (transport, intelligence, etc.) puts that country in highly vulnerable position. IF that place blows up in civil war, it is very bad for our country, and disasterous for Dems politically.

The majority of Iraqis wanted the U.S. to stay. But a critical part of Malaki's narrow coalition demanded all U.S. troops out.

I am not so worried about Iranian domination as some. But the government in Iraq truly is shitty. It is a completely sectarian government hostile to the Sunni and wary about the Kurds. The party that won a plurality of votes in the last election got totally excluded and screwed.

The breakdown in negotiatons is 100% due to Iraqis. It's their country, we can't save them from themselves. The U.S. will continue to have close military relationship via arms sales.

here's one article, that mentions some.Obama is shrewd for not allowing American military personnel to go to iraqi prisons for carrying out actions for the US gov't? that's an angle I haven't heard. any evidence? I'm not buying that theory though if you can back it up...

here's one article, that mentions some.Obama is shrewd for not allowing American military personnel to go to iraqi prisons for carrying out actions for the US gov't? that's an angle I haven't heard. any evidence? I'm not buying that theory though if you can back it up...

OK, how about the first article that comes up in a google search? From the iraqi PM himself:

As I said years ago, these wars will end the same way the Vietnam War ended. After dragging on your years, Americans will tire of these fruitless endeavors, the president will declare victory and bring our troops home. Then all hell will break loose.

No matter how long we prolong those wars, the results will be the same.